Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40747373›Full record

ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Validating remote cognitive tests in the Wisconsin Registry for Alzheimer's Prevention.

Erin M Jonaitis, Rachel L Studer, Bailey Wheelock, Mary E Murphy, Caitlin A Artz, Rachel N Weinberg, Sterling C Johnson, Bruce P Hermann, Kimberly D Mueller, Rebecca E Langhough

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Erin M JonaitisWisconsin Alzheimer's Institute School of Medicine and Public Health University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison Wisconsin USA.
Rachel L StuderWisconsin Alzheimer's Institute School of Medicine and Public Health University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison Wisconsin USA.
Bailey WheelockWisconsin Alzheimer's Institute School of Medicine and Public Health University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison Wisconsin USA.
Mary E MurphyWisconsin Alzheimer's Institute School of Medicine and Public Health University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison Wisconsin USA.
Caitlin A ArtzWisconsin Alzheimer's Institute School of Medicine and Public Health University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison Wisconsin USA.
Rachel N WeinbergWisconsin Alzheimer's Institute School of Medicine and Public Health University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison Wisconsin USA.
Sterling C JohnsonWisconsin Alzheimer's Institute School of Medicine and Public Health University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison Wisconsin USA.
Bruce P HermannDepartment of Neurology School of Medicine and Public Health University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison Wisconsin USA.
Kimberly D MuellerWisconsin Alzheimer's Disease Research Center School of Medicine and Public Health University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison Wisconsin USA.
Rebecca E LanghoughWisconsin Alzheimer's Institute School of Medicine and Public Health University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison Wisconsin USA.

Funding

Wisconsin Registry for Alzheimer's Prevention: Sex Differences in DNA MethylationR01AG027161 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI Nathaniel Ark Chin, Sterling C Johnson · 2007 to 2026
$35.6M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG027161
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRemote cognitive assessment addresses barriers to research participation for older participants, but continuity in longitudinal studies is a challenge. We examined whether scores from telephone-based assessments (T-COG) were valid and reliable estimates of in-person traditional neuropsychological findings.

methodsParticipants in the Wisconsin Registry for Alzheimer's Prevention (WRAP) who had completed in-person testing within the prior 12 months were invited to complete a follow-up T-COG visit. Bland-Altman plots and intraclass correlations were used to assess repeatability and bias.

resultsCorrelations between in-person and T-COG scores were of moderate to large magnitude (Pearson DISCUSSION: The WRAP-abbreviated T-COG battery can be completed in less than an hour and shows good concordance with in-person test administration. Availability of the T-COG option may reduce missing data and/or enhance retention when obstacles to in-person attendance arise. Highlights: Remote testing had adequate validity compared to in-person assessment.A telephone preclinical Alzheimer's composite correlated well with the original.Remote options may reduce missing data when barriers exist to in-person testing.Teleassessment may facilitate participant recruitment and retention.

Indexed as

cognitive testingCOVID‐19 pandemicpsychometricremote assessmentteleneuropsychologyvalidation

Identifiers

PMID40747373
PMCPMC12311312

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.